A Rally to Remember | BARGAINING UPDATE #8 |

TL;DR:

• We exchanged several articles with the University (Grievance Procedure, rules on strikes, the University's rights, our Union’s rights, Union Security, Non-Discrimination) and reached a tentative agreement on our Workloads article. Under this tentative agreement, we will have the right to address overwork, seek remedies when workloads become excessive, and refuse tasks that are “personal in nature”—i.e., not our job.

• We showed up in large numbers, showing the University that our Union is strong and united.

• The University continues to refuse to commit to timely visa processing.

• The fight continues!

July 23rd marked our 8th bargaining session with Northwestern University! As usual, we exchanged several articles with the University. We were able to reach a tentative agreement on our article covering regular hours of work and workloads.

This update, rather than the good, the bad, and the ugly, we’re going to do something different. We’ll focus on the way we win a strong contract—taking collective action —and an item of critical importance: international employee’s rights.

A big shout-out to all who showed up and took action yesterday! Together, we sent a clear message to the University: our members are united, organized, and ready to fight for the contract we deserve.

We demanded that the University provide genuine protections against harassment, discrimination, and retaliation; commit to timely processing of visa and work authorization paperwork; and a Union Shop for a strong, secure, and powerful union!

This action  is just one step in our fight for a good contract. 

As a union, every improvement we win at the bargaining table comes from the collective power when we stand together.

Our strength comes from our numbers. The University works because we do, and when we act together, our voices cannot be ignored.

Every single one of us has a role to play in this fight, and every action we take brings us closer to securing a strong first contract. ✊

Postdocs showed up to tell Northwestern it's TIME to step up. 

Northwestern responded to our demands for international employee rights, including visa renewal timelines and protections for international workers who lose their right to work through no fault of their own.

Our demand for Northwestern University is clear: Do your job. Process visa and work authorization paperwork for which the University is responsible in a timely manner . And when it messes up, the University should be responsible for fixing that mistake and ensuring that affected workers are made whole.

However, here’s what they came back with:

• The University will make only “best efforts” to complete paperwork in a timely manner. 

• If a University delay causes an Employee to lose authorization to work, the University would have up to 10 days to let us know they’ve messed up. That’s 10 days after we’ve lost the legal ability to work! 

• If an employee loses their work authorization, the University would hold their position for only 60 calendar days. 

These proposals fall short of our needs. These proposals don’t help to prevent us from losing employment due to the University’s administrative shortcomings.

This issue has become even more urgent in light of recent changes to J-1 visas (if you missed the news, read here). While the University sends out vague and unhelpful communications, we coordinate communications with the UE National Legal Department to  provide us with real guidance. We keep us safe.

In a union where more than 70% of us are international workers, visa renewals and changes in immigration status are not rare events. They are a reality of working at Northwestern.

We need Northwestern to commit to timely visa processing. This is a critical issue, and we're not backing down. ✊

Postdocs took the time to let Northwestern admin and staff hear their concerns and demand their time be respected.

Together, We Can Win Union Shop | BARGAINING UPDATE #7 |

A big shoutout to Ana (Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences) and Iván (Neurobiology) for sharing their personal experiences and insights about the hurdles they encountered while renewing their visas at the bargaining table. Your insights were incredibly valuable and important for showing the University that these scenarios are real and need to be addressed in our contract!

TL;DR:

• We reached two more Tentative Agreements: 

  • “Employee Rights”—Postdocs and RAs will be guaranteed key professional rights, including access to the tools we need to do our work and authorship and intellectual property rights equal to faculty.  

  • “Appointment Letter”—New postdocs and RAs will be given a letter outlining compensation, benefits, and other key aspects of their new job at least 90 days before starting.

• The University presented counters on articles covering the appointment letter we get before starting, our workloads, strikes and lockouts, and the procedure for filing grievances. 

• We presented counters on articles covering the rights of international employees and the rights of our union. We additionally responded to two of their latest counters during the session.

• The University reiterated its strong opposition to a Union Shop provision, using unacceptable, divisive and xenophobic framing.

We presented counterproposals on both the Appointment Letter and Hours of Work & Workload articles. We were able to reach a Tentative Agreement on the Appointment Letter on site, and we are very close to reaching tentative agreements on Hours of Work & Workload.

The University agreed to provide appointment letters at least 90 calendar days before the start of an appointment. Not only have we secured an official and standardized appointment letter for all postdocs and research associates, but these letters will also include important information such as appointment dates, compensation and benefits, housing and relocation resources, and a statement confirming that the position is covered by our collective bargaining agreement.

Regarding “Hours of Work & Workload”, the University agreed that we have the right to raise concerns about workload with our supervisors and to take “appropriate action” to address those concerns. 

We look forward to continuing progress in the next bargaining session.

The metaphorical house of our future CBA going up and up for postdocs all to see. 

Northwestern University showed its disdain for our organization in its opposition to Union Shop, repeating the same false claim that a Union Shop would require the University to “fire” workers who choose not to join the union. The Union cannot defend members or defend any rights we get on the job if we do not win Union Shop. Once again, the University is using scare tactics against our Union siblings. They argue that our Union shouldn’t get a Union Shop because more than 70% of us are international workers, and “those international workers won’t want to be fired for not joining the Union”. The University is trying to divide our Union and use international workers as pawns. That’s unacceptable!

We cannot emphasize this enough: that is not how a Union Shop works. A Union Shop ensures that all workers covered by the bargaining unit benefit from the collective bargaining agreement, including negotiated improvements to salaries, health benefits, and job security. Union Shop means collectively we all pay for all of the items we get in our contract. As a union member, you get to participate in the democratic decision-making process, including things like deciding what we bargain for!

The fight for Union Shop is far from over. Keep an eye out for more information about it in the near future.

Mr. Patrick Star showing his disdain towards the unfair policies of the Krusty Krab. Also pictured the proprietor, Mr. Krab.

BARGAINING UPDATE #6 - Another Tentative Agreement and Half-Days with More Delays

TL;DR:

• We reached another Tentative Agreement for our Inclusive Work Environment article! 

• We made significant progress on Employee Rights, Appointment Letter, and Hours of Work & Workload articles. 

• The University rejected our language to expedite the processing of immigration-related paperwork and refused to take responsibility for any resulting delays.

• We are still far apart on Non-Discrimination, with the University insisting that existing policies are adequate and that such issues are not grievable.

Dear Members,

Yesterday marked our sixth bargaining session with Northwestern University. What went well? What went not so well? What was downright reprehensible? Read up on this update to learn more!

The good:

We reached a tentative agreement on our Inclusive Work Environment article, winning the right for Employees to update their identification cards at no cost should they change their names! We also successfully negotiated for Employees the right to be referred to by their preferred pronouns and to use restrooms aligned with their gender identity.

Moreover, the Union has made significant progress on articles such as Employee Rights, Appointment Letter, and Hours of Work & Workload.

Mr. Clint Eastwood portraying "The Good" in the famous spaghetti western: "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly." 

International Employee Rights: The University is afraid to commit to strict timelines regarding visa and immigration-related paperwork, attributing potential mishaps in processing times to external factors. Let’s be clear: The Union is not interested in punishing the University for things out of its control. We simply want accountability on their part with respect to the processing of required paperwork. This is why our proposal stipulates that the University should assume responsibility for its own errors in visa and immigration processing, resulting in undue hardships for Employees through no fault of their own. Such measures would include reimbursement for any expenses incurred as a result of these mishaps (i.e., making them whole).

Union Rights : The Union is deeply concerned about the University’s apparent confusion over the onboarding process for new hires, including who is responsible for providing guidance to these Employees. We propose to facilitate the onboarding of new hires and to share information about the collective bargaining agreement.

Full Days, No Delays! While the University's agreement to additional bargaining dates is a step in the right direction, the Union remains firm in its demand for full-day bargaining sessions. These sessions are crucial for making significant progress on the articles under negotiation. There is no logical justification for the University's refusal to schedule full-day sessions several months in advance. Moreover, the University team might take a one-month break from bargaining in August due to “scheduling issues.” When was the last time you got a month-long break from a priority project?

Mr. Leo Van Cleef portraying "The Bad" in the famous spaghetti western: "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly." 

Non-Discrimination: The University insists on maintaining control over definitions of terms in our proposal by rejecting key definitions. One example is where they struck our language to define retaliation:

Retaliation includes, but is not limited to, threats, intimidation, reprisals, promotion denial, coercion, discrimination, harassment or any adverse action against an Employee based on the Employee’s attempt to access services, or to file, report or participate in a complaint, report, investigation, compliance review, hearing, or other aspect of the remedial and/or disciplinary process of violations, actual or perceived, consistent with this Agreement, Northwestern University policies and/or local, state or federal law.

Within sexual harassment, the University has also rejected definitions such as Quid Pro Quo and hostile work environment:

a. Quid Pro Quo: A person’s submission to or rejection of unwelcome sexual conduct is implicitly or explicitly made the basis for employment decisions, academic evaluation, or advancement, or other decisions affecting participation in a University program or activity.

b. Hostile Environment: unwelcome sexual or other sex-based conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive that it unreasonably denies, adversely limits, or interferes with a person’s participation in or benefit from the education, employment or other programs and services of the University and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find to be intimidating or offensive.

Yikes! Needless to say, their definitions miss the mark for our community, and instead, are based on existing University policies, which can be changed at any time for any reason. The University also insists that instances of workplace discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and abuse of authority should not be grievable—they want us to follow their existing processes instead of our proposed grievance procedure with union representation and a clear timeline. Our members have made it clear time and again that the University’s policies and procedures are not sufficient, and we’ll keep advocating for changes to more effectively address these concerns.

Unanswered articles : Believe it or not, there remain articles, since our initial bargaining session on March 17th, that the University has not meaningfully responded to. Imagine the University’s reaction if you took months to respond to your PI!

BARGAINING UPDATE #5 - Progress was made, but persistent disagreements signal a long fight ahead. 

TL;DR:

• We have reached another Tentative Agreement for the Bargaining Unit Information article.

• We won very important rights in the Employee Rights article!

• NU’s Police Department will not assist in ICE activities!

• The University has again stated its refusal to accept Union Shop. They believe they should tell the Union how to do its job.

Dear members,

Yesterday marked our fifth bargaining session with Northwestern University, and we are pleased to share some significant updates.

The good:

The University came back to us with seven (7) counterproposals: Discipline and Discharge, Employee Rights, Grievance Procedure, International Employee Rights, University Management Rights, Union Rights, and No strike/No lockout.

We presented two counterproposals: Non-Discrimination and Inclusive Work Environment.

We reached a tentative agreement on Bargaining Unit Information! This helps with outreach to new members and Union record keeping.

We also immediately responded to their proposal on Employee Rights! Current important points of agreement for our Union include our authorship rights, the right to apply for grants as principal investigators, and some academic freedom protections.

We won a crucial victory for our international colleagues: Northwestern University Police Department will not engage in federal civil immigration enforcement activities, in accordance with the Illinois Trust Act!

Mr. Clint Eastwood portraying "The Good" in the famous spaghetti western: "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly." 

The bad:

The University has yet to respond to our proposals on Appointment Letter, Workload, and Union Recognition.

While the University promises that NUPD will follow state law regarding not collaborating with ICE, they were not interested in giving workers advance notice when compelled to provide their records to DHS. This is a concern for international workers who fear being targeted by the Trump administration.

The University is only committed to making “best efforts to timely complete work authorization documentation”. Their “best efforts” are not good enough; we need a concrete timeline for the completion of this required paperwork.

Mr. Leo Van Cleef portraying "The Bad" in the famous spaghetti western: "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly." 

The ugly:

The University continues its refusal to accept Union Shop, essentially telling us as the Union how it should operate. If they keep prying into our business, we look forward to returning the favor.

The University is trying to limit our ability to discuss union rights and working conditions with postdocs and RAs at work during business hours. They completely refused to allow union orientations for new employees, preventing the Union from educating new members about our rights.

Unsurprisingly, the University has asked us to waive our right to strike during the life of the union contract and implied that we could be asked to scab on striking graduate students. They also clearly stated that we will have to cross picket lines if other NU union workers go on strike, as a refusal to cross will be interpreted as strike activity. Put simply, the University is asking us to undermine solidarity with other workers, thereby endangering our members in the process. This cannot stand!

BARGAINING UPDATE #3 - Hitting A Stride: Though Progress is Made, NU Refuses to Rule Out Cooperation with ICE 

TL;DR:

• We reached a tentative agreement on Health and Safety, made movement on several other articles, and are now negotiating all non-economic articles. This momentum came from our collective action, which pushed the University to meet more frequently and respond more quickly.

• Major fights remain. The University rejected our Academic Freedom proposal, continued pushing for an Open Shop, weakened anti-retaliation protections, and removed language preventing NU Police Department collaboration with ICE and DHS. We’ll keep fighting for stronger protections for all workers, especially international workers. 

Dear members,

Yesterday marked our third bargaining session, and much progress was made! 

We presented counterproposals to the University on three articles: Non-Discrimination, Inclusive Work Environment, and Union Security. The University gave their first response to seven of our March 17th proposals: Appointment Letter, Employee Rights, International Employee Rights, Workload, Grievance Procedure, Union Rights, and Academic Freedom. They also responded on Health and Safety, Discipline and Discharge, and Bargaining Unit Information, which we began discussing at our last session. We are still discussing Recognition. This means we are now negotiating all initially proposed articles. For details, you can always consult our Bargaining Tracker! We appreciate the University’s commitment to negotiating and look forward to continuing to make progress. We responded to three articles (Discipline and Discharge, Bargaining Unit Information, and Health and Safety) during the session. 

Our collective action at the April 21st session catalyzed this movement, transitioning from sessions over a month apart to meetings every other week. We’ve gone from receiving a handful of proposals in over a month to receiving counters on all of our proposals just two weeks later. We reiterate: collective action gets the goods. United we bargain, divided we beg.

Let’s dig in here!

A tentative agreement on Health and Safety!

In our last update, we highlighted how the University was prepared to “promote” but not “ensure” a safe workplace. After we explained at the last session that this would be unacceptable, the University has moved. Their counter proposal yesterday included the word “ensure”, as in our initial proposal. We’ve now signed a tentative agreement on Health and Safety, meaning we can check that article off our list. That’s another win for postdocs and RAs in our ongoing struggle for improved working conditions. 

Postdocs and RAs having a cozy fire now that we're ensured a safe workplace.

Progress on several articles

Many of the University’s counterproposals begin with language that we initially proposed on March 17th, albeit with some modifications. In many cases, we’re not so far apart. 

On Bargaining Unit Information, we have successfully negotiated for monthly updates on hiring lists and employee records, a significant improvement from the University's initial quarterly proposal. Similarly, several clauses that we found concerning were removed from the Discipline and Discharge article. For example, they retracted their proposal enabling the University to put postdocs and RAs on indefinite paid administrative leave, which we view as a form of disciplinary action that interferes with our ability to do research. We welcome this change. 

Other proposals from the University (Appointment Letter, Employee Rights) provide a starting point to work from. We look forward to discussing these in the coming sessions.

However, the distance between our workers’ demands and the proposals of the University are greater, for other articles. Not everything yesterday was positive, as we’ll elaborate on here.

The University still doesn’t meet our standards on protections from discrimination—especially for international workers

Non-Discrimination

The University states that their policies are enough to protect workers. But from our discussions with members, we know of instances of retaliation. We strongly reaffirmed our commitment to safeguarding our members by reinserting language protecting workers from retaliation when reporting mistreatment and misconduct in our response to the University’s Non-discrimination counter proposal. Graduate workers have protections from retaliation in their contract and we refuse to settle for less than our colleagues.  

International Employee Rights 

In a union where over 70% of workers are international, protections for international workers are critical. These rights are under assault under the current federal government. That’s why our March 17th proposal demanded that the Northwestern University Police Department (NUPD) not collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The University struck through this text completely. In writing:

NUPD will not collaborate with DHS or ICE on civil immigration enforcement actions. 

This is unacceptable. We will dive deeper into this matter in our next update.

BARGAINING UPDATE #2 - NORTHWESTERN THINKS POSTDOCS & RAs DON'T DESERVE UNION SHOP

April 21, 2026 

TL;DR: 

• Collective action gets the goods. NU agreed to regular negotiations twice per month in May, June, and July. However, these are half-day sessions. Northwestern continues to delay.

• Northwestern suggests Open Shop for postdocs and RAs, proposing standards lower than virtually any other union at the University.

• General Members’ Meeting on Thursday, April 23rd at 11am. We’ll provide updates on our second round of bargaining. RSVP here!

• Social at Beermiscuous on Friday, April 24th at 6:30pm. RSVP here!

Dear members,

Today was our second negotiation session—and what a session it was!

This morning, members showed up in massive numbers to send the University a message: FULL DAYS, NO DELAYS. We rallied, chanted, and shared coffee and bagels. Northwestern’s security tried to put a stop to it, at one point preventing members of the bargaining committee from entering the elevator to get to the meeting room. Fortunately, the BC eventually made it up to the room. 

This collective action moved the University. At the end of our session, they committed to two dates in June and two in July. The lesson is clear: united we bargain, divided we beg. 

Postdocs and RAs showing up to tell the University: FULL DAYS, NO DELAYS. Not pictured: members of the University’s team taking out their phones to film and sneer at us.

Unfortunately, they did not commit to full-day sessions, nor did they commit to meeting in Chicago. This is unacceptable. We need full-day negotiation sessions, and we need them now. We need to negotiate in our workplaces, not random buildings in downtown Evanston, distant from either campus. 

Beyond our discussion on dates and logistics, the University offered counterproposals to several articles: Non-Discrimination, Union Security, Health and Safety, Bargaining Unit Information, and Discipline and Discharge. They introduced two new proposals on University Management Rights and No Strike clauses. Notably, they rejected our entire Inclusive Work Environment Article. What’s more, after 5 weeks of missed deadlines and slow responses to emails, they failed to respond to 12 other articles we proposed. What were they doing for those five weeks? 

In good news, we did sign our first tentative agreements, on Ground Rules and Severability. We also made quick work of their proposals, drafting and responding with counterproposals on Health and Safety, Bargaining Unit Information, and Discipline and Discharge at the session. We look forward to their counterproposals on the aforementioned articles, and the 12 they’ve not yet responded to, in the coming weeks. Let’s go through the main highlights here. For even more details on language, visit our bargaining tracker!

You can also watch BC member Madeline walk us through today’s negotiations here. 

The fight for Union Shop

The main point of contention at the session was the University’s rejection of Union Shop. Union shop means that all workers join the union within a set period of time after being hired. Union shop is fair, democratic, and ensures everyone pays their share.

Northwestern counterproposed with an open shop. First, they mischaracterized our proposal as “Closed Shop”, which is not accurate. Closed Shop has been illegal since 1947, and their team knows this. They then argued that postdocs and RAs have a uniquely high turnover, and that new hires may not want to join the union if they didn’t vote in our election last Summer. They framed open shop as a matter of “freedom” for new hires. They also claimed our contracts often last only one year and suggested that custodial workers, who may work at NU for 30+ years, can have Union Shop, but postdocs and RAs cannot. 

NU’s behaviour at the table makes one thing clear: they either have not done their homework, or they are deliberately twisting our proposals. We sure don’t know any workers who move cities or countries just to stay in their position for only a year! In reality, many postdocs stay in their positions for 5+ years. And every other union at NU has Union Shop. Postdoc unions across the country (e.g., Cornell, Columbia, Mount Sinai) have Union Shop. We’ll fight for Union Shop, too. 

“Those international workers you care so much about” 

NU again resorted to divisive language, falsely accusing us of not caring about international workers because we are demanding Union Shop. This is patently untrue. In fact, we know that international workers stand to benefit the most from a strong union founded on Union Shop with enforceable grievance procedures. These can help protect foreign postdocs/RAs from unfair termination and forced departure from the country. 

Indeed, we opened the session by highlighting the unique challenges international workers face. More than 70% of our union members are international. NU tried to turn that reality against us. In opposing Union Shop, they argued it would force the University to fire “those international workers you care so much about.” That language is unacceptable and dehumanizing.

International workers are not bargaining chips. They are essential to the University, and they deserve real protection. They are not a weapon to be used against a bargaining committee that is itself 2/3 international.

Can the University ensure a safe workplace?

In their counterproposal on Health and Safety, NU struck the term “ensure” from the statement  “The University shall maintain policies that ensure a safe workplace”, and replaced it with “promote”. That is a major downgrade. Promoting safety is not the same as ensuring it. Moreover, NU has already agreed that graduate students deserve policies that ensure their safety. We work in the same labs, often training those very graduate students, and deserve the same protection. We will not accept weaker standards for our unit.

Protecting employees from retaliation 

The University has made its position clear. Verbally, they rejected our proposal to establish an inclusive work environment. They also completely struck through our proposal to protect workers from retaliation. We have to ask: does the University actually want an inclusive workplace? Do they care about preventing retaliation against workers? Their behaviour at the table does not inspire confidence. We may finally have an answer to the question of how they found it acceptable to sign a deal with the federal government under the Trump regime’s anti-DEI crusade. 

Academic freedom—for me but not for thee

In the University’s proposal on Management Rights, they included a provision about academic freedom stating that nothing in the eventual contract shall limit or infringe upon the University’s academic freedom. When we raised the example of a research team conducting anti-trans research that actively harms members of our community, the University’s response was that they would not infringe on researchers’ academic freedom. However, they did not respond to our proposal to protect our academic freedom.

Let’s be honest about what this means: the University is willing to shield research that targets and harms trans people (while rejecting our protective language from Inclusive Work Environment), and then cynically hide behind the language of academic freedom to excuse it. This is not a neutral principle, it is a choice. And it tells us exactly whose harm the University is prepared to overlook. If the University won’t keep us safe, we’ll keep us safe. Collective bargaining is how we make that happen.